Flames Franchise Trade

[MJK]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

I guess I don't really get the question.

There are a lot of franchises with whom I would gladly trade our players/picks/prospects. That is an easy one.

But your team is like your spouse, kids, dog etc. They are yours and you hope for the best for them. There are no options.

I think you just justified why I took the time to make a new thread and make this post.

People should feel conflicted.

[Phaneuf_Phan]

Trading the entire franchise is crazy talk. Clearly we only need to trade half of the roster and most of the management to be an amazing success.

[MJK]

I amended the question to address comments in this thread.

City, history and logos remain the same, everything else changes (management, coaches, players, prospects etc)

[Dion]

This team would cease to be the Flames if we inserted the players, coach GM etc from another franchise. Each team has a set of attributes it looks for when drafting or trading for players that helps to make up a teams identity.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by Dion

This team would cease to be the Flames if we inserted the players, coach GM etc from another franchise.

How so?
The Flames existed long before the current personnel and will exist after them.
It's just a hypothetical speed up of the turnover.

[The Boy Wonder]

Better question... could we just untrade all the terrible trades made between ~1990 and 1994 or so?

And retain Killer, Roberts, hull, fletcher, etc...

That’s the franchise we should have had. Not the garbage that came from those baloney trades

[midniteowl]

Originally Posted by The Boy Wonder

Better question... could we just untrade all the terrible trades made between ~1990 and 1994 or so?

And retain Killer, Roberts, hull, fletcher, etc...

That’s the franchise we should have had. Not the garbage that came from those baloney trades

Wasn't Hull traded prior to 1990?

[The Boy Wonder]

Originally Posted by midniteowl

Wasn't Hull traded prior to 1990?

Close enough... I suppose he doesn’t really fit the rest of the group but could add suter, macinnis

[Samonadreau]

Biased answer is no. Try to be unbiased and a number of teams are probably set up better now and for the future.

But stay positive folks... better days are ahead and this Core will make some noise.

[getbak]

I think it's safe to say that half the general manager's in the National Hockey League would trade their roster for our roster right now.

[TheOnlyBilko]

Pittsburgh, Tampa and possibly Winnipeg and Edmonton. Yes the Oilers, having the best player in the world for the next 10 years will definitely give Edmonton several good Cup runs.

[TheOnlyBilko]

Originally Posted by midniteowl

Wasn't Hull traded prior to 1990?

Yes Hull went at the 1988 deadline

[Geeoff]

I mean the Jets changed Franchises and now they have the kind of awkward achievement of winning their first playoff game, yet the Jets had previously won games before moving to Arizona...

[gt4flames]

Originally Posted by nik-

Madrid

Good train of thought but Veto. Bayern Munich> Real Madrid

The All Blacks the obvious choice.

At least you know they're tough enough to play hockey.

[topfiverecords]

Nashville, Toronto, or Winnipeg.

[Hot_Flatus]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Most of them.

34 years of being a Flames fan has broken my Fan Bias Generator. I can no longer convince myself that my team is good because it's my team.

You're preaching to the choir.

[SuperMatt18]

Outside of some of the obvious answers I was thinking San Jose.

Likable roster most of the time, have been good for the better part of 20 years now, ownership tends to stay out of the way and they tend to draft really well.